Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
Wendell Cochran wrote: [snip] > Here's the great precept of Unix: Let each command do one thing, & > do it well. That goes for English sentences, too. This is wisdom condensed, and is too great for me. Tom
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
csj wrote: [snip] > Deviant is a politically incorrect term (but you're free to use it). > Yesterday's conformists may well be today's deviants. Imagine somebody > wearing Victorian dress to work or speaking Shakespeare at a board > meeting. My apologies. I was aware of the incorrectness of deviant, but not really conscious of it. I meant 'deviant' as 'one which deviates,' and did not intend any innuendo. While it is true that standards change, they are still standards. If we are to run with your clothing analogy then we would say that, although the standards have changed as years pass, there is still a standard to which people must conform. There are certain modes of dress (not many, but a few) which are illegal in Australia. Almost any pub that you go to in Australia will turn you out if you aren't wearing shoes and a shirt. You are not free to dress as you wish; there are constraints. You have almost complete freedom within those constraints, but the constraints are there. It is true that in certain contexts these constraints are different, such as in the armed forces or certain workplaces, but the constraints are still defined and must be conformed to. To bring this analogy back to language, we would say that there are constraints on the use of language. These constraints do vary; the language we use here is not appropriate for technical documentation. The language that I use at work is not appropriate when speaking to my wife (she understands none of it) and she, being a biologist, can't speak to me using the language of biology. So there are constraints determined by the context. Note that these constraints do not make your speech deterministic; there are still a very large number of correctly expressing any idea in most of these contexts (with the possible exception of with the wife ;-) and you are free to use any of them so long as they conform to the constraints placed upon you by the context. But see below for a major source of constraints. > The problem with Microsoft would only be if they aggressively patent > their protocols, etc. I see nothing wrong with Microsoft "deviating" > from a supposed standard if others are allowed or are able to "deviate" > along with them. As a non-native speaker of English, I place this text > under the GPL (or is it FDL?) for you to borrow, criticise, flame or > /dev/null. That isn't being Microsoft. My objection to the mention of the GPL was not that you could place your text under the GPL, but the claim that the *spirit* of the GPL encouraged the incorrect use of language. I disagree that this is the only problem with Microsoft. I think that Microsoft are in a different position than most with regards to this topic. If I write a server that speaks some strange protocol (say TCSMTP - Tom Cook's SMTP) and publish it on the 'net, or even worse try to sell it, then it will very quickly be discarded as a useless product by a sort of natural selection; no-one else can understand it. But if Microsoft do the same and publish MSTCSMTP (Microsoft's Stolen Tom Cook's SMTP ;-) then it will be installed on a very large number of servers, probably before anyone realises that it is bad. Now the software world has a dilema. Do we harass Microsoft until they change their protocol, or do we modify all our other products to be able to communicate with Microsoft's version? It sounds like an easy question to answer, but maybe isn't. To bring this analogy back to speech again, if an individual speaks English on a public forum in a manner incomprehensible to English speakers then they are in the position of MSTCSMTP; their incorrect English will die out. English speakers are kinder than Microsoft however; we have not only made the effort to understand, and then asked what he meant, but have then gone on to try to show him where he went wrong and to help him speak it better. This seems to have caused you offense, which I regret, but I do not regret the action which caused it; I think it far closer to the 'spirit' of open source, whatever that may be, than defending someone's right to be wrong. [snip] > I didn't mean "however you want". What I meant was that the "rules" of > English, as an international (rather than a literary) language, > shouldn't be based solely on the usage of two nations. There should be > German English, Japanese English and Chinese English in addition to the > ones the British and the Americans are accustomed to speak. No, you have > already been preempted. Look at the manual that came with your > motherboard or UPS. That's Asian English for you! No use holding back > the tide. So, rather than having a language which everyone can understand, you would rather have each country speaking its own mutually incomprehensible version of English??? Why not just speak German, Japanese and Chinese? I know you will say that they should be mutually comprehensible, but I would remind you that what started this was a sentence that several nativ
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 11:21 am, csj wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0800 > > ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > as far as the shift key is concerned, do you really contend that any > > phrase consisting of a misplaced sequence of english words that, by your > > own suggestion, might be rendered apparent in its meaning only through > > foreknowledge of a language other than that of the words used, is > > actually preferable as long as the shift key is employed? > > YES well, in that case: Much luck wish I you by the travel after Mars. So one how you need we there above thereon.
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:50:02 -0800 ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > as far as the shift key is concerned, do you really contend that any phrase > consisting of a misplaced sequence of english words that, by your own > suggestion, might be rendered apparent in its meaning only through > foreknowledge of a language other than that of the words used, is actually > preferable as long as the shift key is employed? YES
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 10:08:14 +1030 Tom Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > csj wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > > > Wendell Cochran wrote: > > > > > > > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 > > > > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > > > > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and > > > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his > > > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ... > > > > For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this > > construction. > > > > > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > > > >> xenophobia, > > > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea > > > > >> what you > > > > >> meant to convey by this. > > > > > > > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > > > > No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking, > > writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates > > of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way > > to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It > > would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of > > the world that limited our rights to modify the language and > > propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually > > say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space > > no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a > > matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film > > mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be. > > This paragraph runs close to nonsense! Imagine (you don't need too much > imagination!) if Micro$oft released a product which didn't conform to the > relevant standard. I don't need to explain to you just how much ridicule > they would receive; go look around the internet for a while and you'll > see it. If someone wrote an HTTP server which 'spoke' the author's own > version of HTTP then they would not be justified by claiming that they were > exercising "the spirit of the GPL." If someone wrote an SMTP server that said > 'RPCT' instead of 'RCPT' then that would not be acceptable. Why is it in "the > spirit of the GPL," to speak a language in a fashion that people don't > understand? If you want to speak a language of your own devising then > you are more than welcome to do so, but people will probably not understand > you and I would thank you not to call it English. Speaking a deviant > language/protocol/whatever and claiming either that it conforms to the > standard > or that it doesn't, but that that is OK, is the way Microsoft do business, > and it has no place outside Redmond. Deviant is a politically incorrect term (but you're free to use it). Yesterday's conformists may well be today's deviants. Imagine somebody wearing Victorian dress to work or speaking Shakespeare at a board meeting. The problem with Microsoft would only be if they aggressively patent their protocols, etc. I see nothing wrong with Microsoft "deviating" from a supposed standard if others are allowed or are able to "deviate" along with them. As a non-native speaker of English, I place this text under the GPL (or is it FDL?) for you to borrow, criticise, flame or /dev/null. That isn't being Microsoft. > Also, to claim that it is OK to speak a language however you want is a > very poorly thought out thing to do. The purpose of using a language is to > communicate, and for it to be effective there needs to be agreement between > the communicating parties on the format and structure of the language. This > applies not only to human language, but it is a very well recognised > principle of software engineering. Not only should a language be consistently > compiled across various development environments and platforms, it > should also be consistently used within an organisation to make maintenance a > possible job. Go and read an IETF standard; they define precisely what they > mean > by a number of terms at the beginning of a document, so that the language > is used consistently when talking about the subject area of the document. > Is this contrary to the spirit of the GPL? Then go and have a look at the > GNU coding standard. It defines not only the syntax and semantics of a > language and it's use in GNU code, but also how the code should be laid out; > where braces and brackets appear, when there should be a new-line and so on. > Is GNU behaving contrary to the spirit of the GPL by standardising their > use of language? I do not think so. I didn't mean "however you want". What I meant was that the "rules" of English, as an international (rather than a literary) language, shouldn't be based solely on the usage of two nations. There should be German English, Japanese English and Chinese English in additio
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
Tue, 19 Feb 2002 06:44:21 +0800
csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
debian-user@lists.debian.org
> > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
> > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his
> > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ...
> For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this
> construction.
It's not clear who's speaking ('I' or `we'?), or what's meant by `here'
or `less', or whether `someone' and `his' refer to the same person.
The imprecision adds up.
> . . . I see nothing wrong with speaking, writing or even reading
>English in a manner foreign to the dictates of Hollywood, the BBC or
>New York Times.
Nor do I, but the point here is clarity.
> To insist on a correct way to write or speak English runs contrary to
the spirit of the GPL.
Has anyone in this thread proposed to dictate the `correct way'?
Not that I know of. (The GPL isn't relevant.)
> It would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of
the world that limited our rights to modify the language and propagate
our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually say, "You ain't
seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space no one can hear
your scream."
No, it wouldn't. Asking for simple language is not coercion.
> Language, like open source, should be a matter of using
what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film mogul or computer
science lecturer says it should be.
Exactly: the lines that provoked this thread _don't_ work.
(I care nothing for 'Grim grammarians in their golden gowns', for
they do indeed value rules over understanding.)
> Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have
> understood the original.
I've been reading German for many years, & I disagree. Yes, Dryden
professed to improve his writing by translating it from English to Latin
&
back again. Dryden was a fool, & English is not an inflected language.
>Language has meaning only within a given context. And in the context
>of this forum, "And here is" makes easy and perfect sense. But "That
>is a cat!" (as proper as the sentence might be) won't, because I
>don't have the reference to know if you're actually pointing to a cat
>or just a scrappy little dog. To me the only criminals are those who
>insist their Shift key is broken.
You're right about the shift key, & also to say that meaning depends
on context. The context of the debian-users forum is English --
readers, writers, vocabulary, usage, syntax, idiom. It won't do to
whine (like many an inept author) `But you know what I mean!'
However, none of what I say here is meant to disparage the original
writer. That sentence simply grew too long to keep under control, &
I'm sure that if he'd re-read it he'd have rewritten his own words &
done much better. For proof, see his other posts to debian-users.
Here's the great precept of Unix: Let each command do one thing, &
do it well. That goes for English sentences, too.
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Monday 18 February 2002 02:44 pm, csj wrote: > > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and > > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his > > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ... > > For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this > construction. > apparently. > > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > > >> xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i > > > >> have no idea what you meant to convey by this. > > > > this was my response to the original post. where, in the above do you see any insistence on a correct way to speak, write, or read english; or, for that matter, any imtimation whatsoever that the writer of the original post is being charged to bind himself to any dictates, real or imagined? > > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? this is carel's response to my post. he is not the original poster. neither is he being defensive. from where do you construe that anyone involved in the discussion, prior to your contribution, is feeling attacked or defensive, or is attacking anyone else? > > No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking, > writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates > of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way > to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It > would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of > the world that limited our rights to modify the language and > propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually > say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space > no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a > matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film > mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be. > what makes you think that the use of mutually comprehendible grammar is a consequence of dictates on the part of anyone, much less such inauthoritative sources as hollywood, the bbc, and the new york times? also, which part of the gpl implies that its spirit or any other part of it is intended to support the use of obtuse grammatical constructions in any language? have you actually read the gpl, lately. apart from the absence of any clause that promotes the pidginization of any language, it is also one of the most incredibly literate pieces of writing and is actually proof of the validity of employing careful diction for the sake of mutual comprehension in a very broad audience--except, apparently, for you. > > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > > > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > > > > suggestions in a constructive way. > > > this is the remainder of carel's post, which is, effectively, a translation of the original in that it removes all the ambiguities contained in the original, reducing it to the level of coherence that the original poster obviously intended to achieve. > > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is > > > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not > > > English.) > > > > > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They > > > still do. > this, above, is from a subsequent poster. the only complaint by myself or by anybody else was that the structure of the original rendered the author's intent unclear. that's the issue, not any imaginary imposition of dictates as to how he should express himself. > Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have > understood the original. > wanna bet? had the author of the original also included a german translation, i would have had no trouble eliminating the ambiguites his particular usage of english raised, in this case. given that you obviously prize a few weeks of german lessons as the means to greater understanding, why are you posting now, and not back when the clarification of the original was an issue? und noch dazu, falls es dir lieber waere, das alles hier auf deutsch zu lesen, schreib mir doch bescheid. > Language has meaning only within a given context. And in the context > of this forum, "And here is" makes easy and perfect sense. But "That > is a cat!" (as proper as the sentence might be) won't, because I > don't have the reference to know if you're actually pointing to a cat > or just a scrappy little dog. To me the only criminals are those who > insist their Shift key is broken. so, if i were to say that i have a cat, you would see a grammatical error in that contention because you can't see my cat? the given context that the language used here requires isn't supported by the proof of the cat's existence. the logic of the statement in your example does not depend on the existence or non-e
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
* Tom Cook ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
> This paragraph runs close to nonsense! Imagine (you don't need too much
> imagination!) if Micro$oft released a product which didn't conform to
> the relevant standard.
No need for any imagination. Just see .sig (and weep).
Dima
--
Riding roughshod over some little used trifle like the English language is not a
big deal to an important technology innovator like Microsoft. They did just that
by naming a major project dot-Net (".Net"). Before that, a period followed by a
capital letter was used to mark a sentence boundary. --T. Gottfried, RISKS 21.91
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 06:44:21AM +0800, csj wrote: [snip] > > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > > >> xenophobia, > > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea > > > >> what you > > > >> meant to convey by this. > > > > > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > > No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking, > writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates > of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way > to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It > would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of > the world that limited our rights to modify the language and > propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually > say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space > no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a > matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film > mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be. Bullshit. The purpose of language is communication. The purpose of grammar is not to dictate how thou shalt construct sentences and paragraphs, but how to effectively communicate. There isn't a well repsected fiction author that hasn't internalized the grammar, before taking liberties with it. Using the slang above is nothing more than violating the grammar for literary effect (minimal, and tired as it may be). > > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > > > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > > > > suggestions in a constructive way. > > > > > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is > > > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not > > > English.) > > > > > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They > > > still do. > > Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have > understood the original. With considerable effort. > > I fear that I am forced to concur. As a native English speaker (NOT > > American speaker ;-) I can see the sense of the translation, but when > > reading the original have no clue what it is about. The phrase 'and > > here is...' can not be given the object 'nothing,' nor can it be given > > the object 'no interest'. Although certain idioms include such > > phraseology as 'and here isn't the Prime Minister of England,' such > > usage is not correct and is ambiguous and confusing. The correct > > phrasing of this clause is '...and there is no interest here...' > > although the 'and' is purely there because it was in the original. I > > don't think it is legal to begin a paragraph with 'and.' The use of the > > future tense indefinite 'and would formulate' is also somewhat skewed > > from the probable intention of the phrase; it implies that we are > > talking about someone who would even consider doing so, which I don't > > think is the intent of the writer. The position of 'constructively,' > > although avoiding the split infinitive of 'to constructively formulate,' > > is nonetheless somewhat awkward, and probably breaks some rule > > somewhere. It fits the rhythm of the language far more pleasingly to > > move this word to the end of the sentence. So, to sum up, a correct > > phrasing might be: > > Language has meaning only within a given context. And in the context > of this forum, "And here is" makes easy and perfect sense. But "That > is a cat!" (as proper as the sentence might be) won't, because I > don't have the reference to know if you're actually pointing to a cat > or just a scrappy little dog. To me the only criminals are those who > insist their Shift key is broken. And here is a mailing list. It is not clear what the "here" is in the original. It apparently refers to "no interest", not the mailing list. It takes mental gymnastics to see that "here" doesn't refer to thing the sentence construction indicates. -- Eric G. Miller
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
csj wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > > Wendell Cochran wrote: > > > > > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 > > > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and > > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his > > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ... > > For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this > construction. > > > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > > >> xenophobia, > > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea > > > >> what you > > > >> meant to convey by this. > > > > > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > > No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking, > writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates > of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way > to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It > would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of > the world that limited our rights to modify the language and > propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually > say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space > no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a > matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film > mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be. This paragraph runs close to nonsense! Imagine (you don't need too much imagination!) if Micro$oft released a product which didn't conform to the relevant standard. I don't need to explain to you just how much ridicule they would receive; go look around the internet for a while and you'll see it. If someone wrote an HTTP server which 'spoke' the author's own version of HTTP then they would not be justified by claiming that they were exercising "the spirit of the GPL." If someone wrote an SMTP server that said 'RPCT' instead of 'RCPT' then that would not be acceptable. Why is it in "the spirit of the GPL," to speak a language in a fashion that people don't understand? If you want to speak a language of your own devising then you are more than welcome to do so, but people will probably not understand you and I would thank you not to call it English. Speaking a deviant language/ protocol/whatever and claiming either that it conforms to the standard or that it doesn't, but that that is OK, is the way Microsoft do business, and it has no place outside Redmond. Also, to claim that it is OK to speak a language however you want is a very poorly thought out thing to do. The purpose of using a language is to comm- unicate, and for it to be effective there needs to be agreement between the communicating parties on the format and structure of the language. This applies not only to human language, but it is a very well recognised principle of software engineering. Not only should a language be consistently compiled across various development environments and platforms, it should also be consistently used within an organisation to make maintenance a possible job. Go and read an IETF standard; they define precisely what they mean by a number of terms at the beginning of a document, so that the language is used consistently when talking about the subject area of the document. Is this contrary to the spirit of the GPL? Then go and have a look at the GNU coding standard. It defines not only the syntax and semantics of a language and it's use in GNU code, but also how the code should be laid out; where braces and brackets appear, when there should be a new-line and so on. Is GNU behaving contrary to the spirit of the GPL by standardising their use of language? I do not think so. > > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > > > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > > > > suggestions in a constructive way. > > > > > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is > > > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not > > > English.) > > > > > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They > > > still do. > > Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have > understood the original. So the entire English speaking world should take a couple of weeks of German lessons, and some French while we're there, and perhaps some Russian would be of use, heck, why not go and learn Esparanto while we're at it? There has to be someone here who speaks it... > > I fear that I am forced to concur. As a native English speaker (NOT > > American speaker ;-) I can see the sense of the translation, but when > > reading the original have no clue what it is about. The phrase 'and > > here is...' can not be given the object 'n
Re: [OT] Suggestion for next Debian release
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 10:41:48AM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > Wendell Cochran wrote: > > > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 > > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and > > > > > > less someone who would formulate constructively his > > > > > > criticism and suggestions ... For the life of me, I can't see what's unclear about this construction. > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > >> xenophobia, > > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what > > >> you > > >> meant to convey by this. > > > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? No need to be defensive,man. I see nothing wrong with speaking, writing or even reading English in a manner foreign to the dictates of Hollywood, the BBC or New York Times. To insist on a correct way to write or speak English runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL. It would be as if the *native* speakers imposed a EULA on the rest of the world that limited our rights to modify the language and propagate our own "ethnicized" versions, while they could casually say, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet" or "Hasta la vista, punk, in space no one can hear your scream." Language, like open source, should be a matter of using what works, not what some stodgy grammarian, film mogul or computer science lecturer says it should be. > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > > > suggestions in a constructive way. > > > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is > > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not > > English.) > > > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They > > still do. Anybody who has taken a few weeks of German lessons would have understood the original. > I fear that I am forced to concur. As a native English speaker (NOT > American speaker ;-) I can see the sense of the translation, but when > reading the original have no clue what it is about. The phrase 'and > here is...' can not be given the object 'nothing,' nor can it be given > the object 'no interest'. Although certain idioms include such > phraseology as 'and here isn't the Prime Minister of England,' such > usage is not correct and is ambiguous and confusing. The correct > phrasing of this clause is '...and there is no interest here...' > although the 'and' is purely there because it was in the original. I > don't think it is legal to begin a paragraph with 'and.' The use of the > future tense indefinite 'and would formulate' is also somewhat skewed > from the probable intention of the phrase; it implies that we are > talking about someone who would even consider doing so, which I don't > think is the intent of the writer. The position of 'constructively,' > although avoiding the split infinitive of 'to constructively formulate,' > is nonetheless somewhat awkward, and probably breaks some rule > somewhere. It fits the rhythm of the language far more pleasingly to > move this word to the end of the sentence. So, to sum up, a correct > phrasing might be: Language has meaning only within a given context. And in the context of this forum, "And here is" makes easy and perfect sense. But "That is a cat!" (as proper as the sentence might be) won't, because I don't have the reference to know if you're actually pointing to a cat or just a scrappy little dog. To me the only criminals are those who insist their Shift key is broken. > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his criticisms and > suggestions constructively. > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) -- Humanity's future is in the stars: support a manned mission to Mars! http://www.thinkmars.net/petition/addpetition.html
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
Carel Fellinger wrote: On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote: On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote: On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote: [snip] and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you meant to convey by this. I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and suggestions in a constructive way. Like Ben, I didn't get it the first time either; thanks for the clarification. Kent
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:27:08PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > "Eric G. Miller" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > > > Tony Crawford wrote: > > > > > > > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41): > > > > > > > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > > > > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his > > > > > criticisms and suggestions constructively. > > > > > > > > > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) > > > > > > > > How much is less than no interest? > > > > > > This is a good point, and one which I in fact considered while writing > > > the message. Although it appears non-sensical to say 'even less' than > > > no interest this is a fairly well accepted usage in various idioms. The > > > usage is in fact meant to bring to the reader's mind the very question > > > you have asked; if there is no interest in X, how much must we dislike > > > Y? > > > > The problem isn't "even less", but the subsequent "someone". What is > > an "even less someone"? There should be a period (or at least > > semicolon) after "anyone". Then, "even less, if criticisms and > > suggestions are constructive." The circumlocution of putting > > "constructively" at the end when it modifies "formulates" is all > > unnecessary verbiage. > > > > "We have no interest in ridiculing anyone. Even less, if their > > criticisms and suggestions are constructive." > > > > "Even less" than "no interest" is an understated emphatic, but > > "especially if/when" would probably work better. > > I disagree here. I am no English scholar, although I take a casual > interest in keeping my own English correct, and I lack the terminology > to properly describe this, but I think that, where a sentence has two > main clauses, it is valid to omit almost any part of the second main > clause. These parts are then assumed to be identical to the same parts > in the first main clause. Thus: Well, I'm no English scholar, and you are correct about being able to omit parts in a clause. But, the whole purpose of writing is communication. When you start omitting explicit references in clauses, you better be damn sure of your subject-verb-object agreement between the clauses. Otherwise, the implied subject or object becomes ambiguous. Check it: The perfume that her body exhaled was of the quality of that earth-flesh, fungi, which smells of captured dampness and yet is so dry, overcast with the odour of oil of amber, which is an inner malady of the sea, making her seem as if she had invaded a sleep incautious and entire. -- Djuna Barnes, _Nightwood_ 1936 That's a complicated sentence construction, but there's no confusion about where the subjects and objects are (even if you do have to read it more than once to grok). The short form is, "she smelled like a mushroom". -- Eric G. Miller
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
"Eric G. Miller" wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > > Tony Crawford wrote: > > > > > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41): > > > > > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > > > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his > > > > criticisms and suggestions constructively. > > > > > > > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) > > > > > > How much is less than no interest? > > > > This is a good point, and one which I in fact considered while writing > > the message. Although it appears non-sensical to say 'even less' than > > no interest this is a fairly well accepted usage in various idioms. The > > usage is in fact meant to bring to the reader's mind the very question > > you have asked; if there is no interest in X, how much must we dislike > > Y? > > The problem isn't "even less", but the subsequent "someone". What is > an "even less someone"? There should be a period (or at least > semicolon) after "anyone". Then, "even less, if criticisms and > suggestions are constructive." The circumlocution of putting > "constructively" at the end when it modifies "formulates" is all > unnecessary verbiage. > > "We have no interest in ridiculing anyone. Even less, if their > criticisms and suggestions are constructive." > > "Even less" than "no interest" is an understated emphatic, but > "especially if/when" would probably work better. I disagree here. I am no English scholar, although I take a casual interest in keeping my own English correct, and I lack the terminology to properly describe this, but I think that, where a sentence has two main clauses, it is valid to omit almost any part of the second main clause. These parts are then assumed to be identical to the same parts in the first main clause. Thus: There is no interest here in ridiculing anyone, [and] even less [interest in ridiculing] someone who formulates his criticisms and suggestions constructively. Now that I look at it again I see that you are indeed correct regarding the punctuation; either the 'and' I have inserted above should be there, or a semicolon should take the place of the comma. Regards Tom
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On 2002.02.17 16:50:32 +0100 Wendell Cochran wrote: Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you >> meant to convey by this. > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > suggestions in a constructive way. As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not English.) Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They still do. As another non-native speaker, having seen the solution, I can see how it would mean that, if you insert "interest in ridiculing" between "less" and "someone". This sort of, kind of, can be done in dutch, which is probably why it makes some sense to me (and to Carel). Matijs.
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote: > Tony Crawford wrote: > > > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41): > > > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his > > > criticisms and suggestions constructively. > > > > > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) > > > > How much is less than no interest? > > This is a good point, and one which I in fact considered while writing > the message. Although it appears non-sensical to say 'even less' than > no interest this is a fairly well accepted usage in various idioms. The > usage is in fact meant to bring to the reader's mind the very question > you have asked; if there is no interest in X, how much must we dislike > Y? The problem isn't "even less", but the subsequent "someone". What is an "even less someone"? There should be a period (or at least semicolon) after "anyone". Then, "even less, if criticisms and suggestions are constructive." The circumlocution of putting "constructively" at the end when it modifies "formulates" is all unnecessary verbiage. "We have no interest in ridiculing anyone. Even less, if their criticisms and suggestions are constructive." "Even less" than "no interest" is an understated emphatic, but "especially if/when" would probably work better. -- Eric G. Miller
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
Tony Crawford wrote: > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41): > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his > > criticisms and suggestions constructively. > > > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) > > How much is less than no interest? This is a good point, and one which I in fact considered while writing the message. Although it appears non-sensical to say 'even less' than no interest this is a fairly well accepted usage in various idioms. The usage is in fact meant to bring to the reader's mind the very question you have asked; if there is no interest in X, how much must we dislike Y? Tom > > SCNR > > (BTW I'd guess that "would" was an attempt at a past tense of > "will" in the obsolete sense of "want to": "...someone who was > trying to formulate...") Yes, that seems likely. It is somewhat ambiguous, though. Tom
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41): > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his > criticisms and suggestions constructively. > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) How much is less than no interest? SCNR (BTW I'd guess that "would" was an attempt at a past tense of "will" in the obsolete sense of "want to": "...someone who was trying to formulate...") T. -- -- Tony Crawford -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- +49-3341-30 99 99 --
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 18:11, Tom Cook wrote: > Here endeth the lesson. ;-) One can't help but be educated by reading this list... :) While I'm not a "native" English speaker per se, I'm about as close as one can get, and I still consider myself educated by that post! :) -Alex signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
Wendell Cochran wrote: > > Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 > Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone > > > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... > > >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, > >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you > >> meant to convey by this. > > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > > suggestions in a constructive way. > > As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is > trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not > English.) > > Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They > still > do. I fear that I am forced to concur. As a native English speaker (NOT American speaker ;-) I can see the sense of the translation, but when reading the original have no clue what it is about. The phrase 'and here is...' can not be given the object 'nothing,' nor can it be given the object 'no interest'. Although certain idioms include such phraseology as 'and here isn't the Prime Minister of England,' such usage is not correct and is ambiguous and confusing. The correct phrasing of this clause is '...and there is no interest here...' although the 'and' is purely there because it was in the original. I don't think it is legal to begin a paragraph with 'and.' The use of the future tense indefinite 'and would formulate' is also somewhat skewed from the probable intention of the phrase; it implies that we are talking about someone who would even consider doing so, which I don't think is the intent of the writer. The position of 'constructively,' although avoiding the split infinitive of 'to constructively formulate,' is nonetheless somewhat awkward, and probably breaks some rule somewhere. It fits the rhythm of the language far more pleasingly to move this word to the end of the sentence. So, to sum up, a correct phrasing might be: [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his criticisms and suggestions constructively. Here endeth the lesson. ;-) Tom
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:52:42 +0100 Carel Fellinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone > > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... >> i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, >> but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you >> meant to convey by this. > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > suggestions in a constructive way. As an editor I spend my life trying to understand what a writer is trying to say. (That includes writers whose first language is not English.) Despite decades of practice, the lines marked defeated me. They still do.
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
> "ben" == ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ben> On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:52 pm, Carel Fellinger wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote: >> > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote: >> > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote: >> > > [snip] >> > > >> > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and >> less someone > > > who would formulate constructively his >> criticism and suggestions ... >> > >> > i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind >> of > xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in >> english. i have no > idea what you meant to convey by this. >> >> I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse >> seem clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just >> kidding? >> >> To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in >> ridiculing anyone, and especially not someone that formulates >> his criticism and suggestions in a constructive way. Thanks Carel, it's nice to have a personal translator ;-) ben> no, i wasn't kidding, and thanks for the translation. perhaps ben> it's all the more apparent to you precisely because you are ben> not a native english speaker. ben> that said, grammar does count in english, primarily because ben> it lacks any basis in logic, having been derived from a broad ben> corruption of romance (latin based; spanish, french, italian) ben> and germanic languages (german, dutch, and all that of the ben> scandinavian countries--except for finnish, which, by its ben> name, desribes, at least phonetically, notice of its own ben> imminent demise). Thanks for the lesson (my side line is teaching this stuff in German or Spanish, so I always welcome some fresh air). I know my English is bad and I can bear with it. I hope you speak German, Spanish, French, Portuguese or a bit of Russian so we easily will find a common ground for our discussion. ben> nonetheless, while the rules of english lack logic, those ben> rules do, however, have significance in usage, particularly ben> where one seeks to make a salient point based on tenuous ben> grounds. ben> given your translation--which by its existence justifies its ben> necessity--i am moved to respond to the original poster that ben> people in glass houses are well advised to not throw stones. That's not very logical "which by it's existence justifies", when you asked for it (a paraphrase, not a "translation") before. Ok the point was: It was intended as an intersection of a general sentence "who formulates" and a personal observation (subjunctive "if you would formulate"); you could call it a kind of "contaminatio" rhetorically. So it was intentional nonsense. And obviously it didn't work out (for you at least), so I'll confine myself to technical answers. Regards, MH -- (Dr.) Michael Hummel mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fprint = F24D EAC6 E3D7 372C 9122 D510 EB24 01CA 0B56 B518 id: 1024D/0B56B518 key: http://www.seitung.net/key pgpJFMGoBzoqa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:52 pm, Carel Fellinger wrote: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote: > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote: > > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone > > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... > > > > i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of > > xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no > > idea what you meant to convey by this. > > I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem > clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? > > To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing > anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and > suggestions in a constructive way. no, i wasn't kidding, and thanks for the translation. perhaps it's all the more apparent to you precisely because you are not a native english speaker. that said, grammar does count in english, primarily because it lacks any basis in logic, having been derived from a broad corruption of romance (latin based; spanish, french, italian) and germanic languages (german, dutch, and all that of the scandinavian countries--except for finnish, which, by its name, desribes, at least phonetically, notice of its own imminent demise). nonetheless, while the rules of english lack logic, those rules do, however, have significance in usage, particularly where one seeks to make a salient point based on tenuous grounds. given your translation--which by its existence justifies its necessity--i am moved to respond to the original poster that people in glass houses are well advised to not throw stones. ben
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote: > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote: > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone > > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... > > > i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, > but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you > meant to convey by this. I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse seem clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just kidding? To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in ridiculing anyone, and especially not someone that formulates his criticism and suggestions in a constructive way. -- groetjes, carel
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote: > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote: > [snip] > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone > > who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... > i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind of xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in english. i have no idea what you meant to convey by this. ben
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 03:50:22PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > You are on crack. The maintainer's bug report against debhelper > > explicitly said that he didn't like the dependency on xutils. > > I'm on pot actually. I'm whining about a general QA problem of > which bitchx/debhelper is just a particular example. So why are you doing it on debian-user, where chances are the only effect it will have is to generate hot air? Why not file bugs, generally take the complaint somewhere more appropriate, and in general not start off with remarks like the one with which you started this thread? As one of several people spending basically the entire weekend fixing bugs in an effort to get woody out the door, it's damn annoying when people can't even be bothered to file bugs about the things they seem to have time to make overgeneralized rants about. No wonder problems go unnoticed for months and then pop up just when they're hardest to fix. For what it's worth, I've just filed a bug report on bitchx about this. > Otherwise you may end up doing something plainly ridiculous, like > making a command-line irc client depend on half the X Window System. Let's see what it actually pulls in, shall we? Package: bitchx Depends: libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20020112a-1), xutils Package: xutils Depends: xfree86-common (>> 4.0), libc6 (>= 2.2.4-4), libncurses5 (>= 5.2.20020112a-1), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3) Package: xfree86-common Depends: debianutils (>= 1.13) Sure, it's not ideal, but it doesn't even pull in the X libraries. The X dependencies involved are only around half the size of bitchx itself. > And "it's unstable" is not a very good excuse for not thinking. This is entirely true. However, it's a good excuse for being just ever so slightly calmer about minor issues which the maintainer suggests are transient. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 12:51:48PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > > As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's chair and > > keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against $PACKAGE will fix > > that, I fully expect that bug to be marked "wontfix". Ridiculing > > the guy in public, OTOH, might work. > > You are on crack. The maintainer's bug report against debhelper > explicitly said that he didn't like the dependency on xutils. I'm on pot actually. I'm whining about a general QA problem of which bitchx/debhelper is just a particular example. It's not that hard to do something stupid at 4am when you've just spent 8 hours trying to work around a bug in (let's say, for example) debhelper; one should stop and think for a moment before uploading (just like one should stop and read the command before pressing Enter, it may read "rm -rf / stuff" instead of "rm -rf /stuff"). Otherwise you may end up doing something plainly ridiculous, like making a command-line irc client depend on half the X Window System. (And that may well be acceptable at times, e.g. when you're uploading a critical security fix. But in many cases it may be better to *not* upload the package until the bug in $foo is fixed). This is not a bug in a particular package, it's the maintainer losing sight of -- whatever you'd call it, big picture, common sense... I also claim that it's just a matter of time before someone makes their $foo depend on $bar because they [don't have time|can't be bothered] to create a separate $libfoobar0g package with one shared library in it. With similar results (or worse). Ask Murphy if don't believe me. And "it's unstable" is not a very good excuse for not thinking. Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 12:51:48PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's chair and > keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against $PACKAGE will fix > that, I fully expect that bug to be marked "wontfix". Ridiculing > the guy in public, OTOH, might work. You are on crack. The maintainer's bug report against debhelper explicitly said that he didn't like the dependency on xutils. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:09:31PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > * Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > > Yup, I saw that. I get rather fed up with people who transmute a known, > > acknowledged issue into a rant about all of Debian though ... > > You didn't read my relpy to dman, did you? This is precisely what > I'm talking about: "a small glitch somewehre in the dependency > tree (OK, so it's in debhelper, actually) will result in installing > 10GB of packages you don't need (OK, so it's "only" xutils, xf86-common > and a few libraries those depend on) ..." It's unstable. Go away if you can't handle it; otherwise try filing good enough bugs so that we can actually get it ready for release. > Tell me, o wise one, will apt auto-deinstall all that crap now that > the bug is fixed? deborphan is your friend. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
> "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dimitri> * MH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ... >> What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively >> complaining here... Dimitri> I'm complaining rather actively (check the archives). My Dimitri> gripe is not with bitchx per se (I've only logged on to Dimitri> irc once or twice last year, I just did a dpkg --purge Dimitri> bitchx), it is with the direction Debian is going, Dimitri> spec. with FUBAR'ing things that weren't broken in the Dimitri> name of luser-friendliness (dexconf, alsaconf, pam'ifying Dimitri> /sbin/halt). Not insisting too much here: only complaining (bitchxing ;-) in debian-user is not that constructive, isn't it? Dimitri> I can live with it, if $PACKAGE also installs a small Dimitri> $LIBRARY in case it's going to be used with Dimitri> $OTHER_PACKAGE. In fact, I can't think of a better Dimitri> solution here. The problem is that once you've let this Dimitri> genie out, less cluefull maintainers will sooner or later Dimitri> make their packages depend on e.g. the whole fscking X Dimitri> subsystem, "in case someone wants to run my $foo in Dimitri> xterm". Depending bitchx on xutils isn't very evident (but check the changelog as Colin stated), xutils depending on X(...) is a matter of course. All this assuming that a package dependency system is desirable -- and here we have some strong consensus among the users of debian. I don't want to check the damn dependencies of every piece of software I'm using. Dimitri> As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's Dimitri> chair and keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against Dimitri> $PACKAGE will fix that, I fully expect that bug to be Dimitri> marked "wontfix". Ridiculing the guy in public, OTOH, Dimitri> might work. If user (functional definition, also DD's are users outside of their area) don't file bugs, don't give feedback, so what's the use of a OS manufactured by a "community"? Dima (always the optimist) You should be more, and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and less someone who would formulate constructively his criticism and suggestions ... Regards, MH -- (Dr.) Michael Hummel mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fprint = F24D EAC6 E3D7 372C 9122 D510 EB24 01CA 0B56 B518 id: 1024D/0B56B518 key: http://www.seitung.net/key pgpyXkMt3zGnw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Colin Watson wrote: > > > Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him > > > to actually read the changelog. > > > > > > * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no > > > longer worked anyway. This isn't my favorite solution, as xutils > > > is big, but it will do for now. Bug on debhelper filed. > > > > I'm pretty sure that I fixed that bug in debhelper, bitchx should be > > able to get away w/o depending on xutils now. > > Yup, I saw that. I get rather fed up with people who transmute a known, > acknowledged issue into a rant about all of Debian though ... You didn't read my relpy to dman, did you? This is precisely what I'm talking about: "a small glitch somewehre in the dependency tree (OK, so it's in debhelper, actually) will result in installing 10GB of packages you don't need (OK, so it's "only" xutils, xf86-common and a few libraries those depend on) ..." Tell me, o wise one, will apt auto-deinstall all that crap now that the bug is fixed? Dima -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
* MH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ... > What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively > complaining here... I'm complaining rather actively (check the archives). My gripe is not with bitchx per se (I've only logged on to irc once or twice last year, I just did a dpkg --purge bitchx), it is with the direction Debian is going, spec. with FUBAR'ing things that weren't broken in the name of luser-friendliness (dexconf, alsaconf, pam'ifying /sbin/halt). I can live with it, if $PACKAGE also installs a small $LIBRARY in case it's going to be used with $OTHER_PACKAGE. In fact, I can't think of a better solution here. The problem is that once you've let this genie out, less cluefull maintainers will sooner or later make their packages depend on e.g. the whole fscking X subsystem, "in case someone wants to run my $foo in xterm". As far as I can tell the bug is between maintainer's chair and keyboard. I don't see how filing a bug against $PACKAGE will fix that, I fully expect that bug to be marked "wontfix". Ridiculing the guy in public, OTOH, might work. Dima (always the optimist) -- Q276304 - Error Message: Your Password Must Be at Least 18770 Characters and Cannot Repeat Any of Your Previous 30689 Passwords -- RISKS 21.37
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 02:54:39PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: | > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | > | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common, | > | > | who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!). | > | > It is a sugggestion, not a requirement. | | Must be a brain fart: I'm sure it was "Suggests: xfree86-common" when I | looked at "packages that depend on xutils" in aptitude. Now that I checked, | xutils actually *depends* on xfree86-common. Oh, Depends and Suggests are quite different. | Besides, that wasn't my point. I was referring to all those useless | libraries that get installed "because somebody might want to | * run $foo in xterm | * authenticate HTTP requests against mysql database | * etc." | | I'm sure it sounded like a reasonble idea at the time, but when | $foo depends on $bar who depends on $baz and so on ad nauseam, the | whole thing will get FUBAR eventually. All it takes is a little bug | somewhere in the middle of dependency tree, and you'll see apt | downloading 10GB of packages you didn't want while purging the ones | you did want "to satisfy dependencies". It is a tricky balancing act to find the minimal set that works, yet still be fully functional and not extraordinarily difficult to get more. There is a reason I haven't upgraded apache in quite a while. -D -- Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > > Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him > > to actually read the changelog. > > > > * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no > > longer worked anyway. This isn't my favorite solution, as xutils > > is big, but it will do for now. Bug on debhelper filed. > > I'm pretty sure that I fixed that bug in debhelper, bitchx should be > able to get away w/o depending on xutils now. Yup, I saw that. I get rather fed up with people who transmute a known, acknowledged issue into a rant about all of Debian though ... -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
Colin Watson wrote: > Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him > to actually read the changelog. > > * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no > longer worked anyway. This isn't my favorite solution, as xutils > is big, but it will do for now. Bug on debhelper filed. I'm pretty sure that I fixed that bug in debhelper, bitchx should be able to get away w/o depending on xutils now. -- see shy jo
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 07:51:32AM +0100, MH wrote: > > "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dimitri> Besides, that wasn't my point. I was referring to all > Dimitri> those useless libraries that get installed "because > Dimitri> somebody might want to * run $foo in xterm * authenticate > Dimitri> HTTP requests against mysql database * etc." > > What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively > complaining here... Because that wouldn't make him feel so l33t? It would also require him to actually read the changelog. * Depend on xutils to eliminate a godawful postinst hack which no longer worked anyway. This isn't my favorite solution, as xutils is big, but it will do for now. Bug on debhelper filed. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
> "Dimitri" == Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dimitri> * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: >> | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests >> xfree86-common, | who in turn depends on libaxw and so >> on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!). >> >> It is a sugggestion, not a requirement. Dimitri> Must be a brain fart: I'm sure it was "Suggests: Dimitri> xfree86-common" when I looked at "packages that depend on Dimitri> xutils" in aptitude. Now that I checked, xutils actually Dimitri> *depends* on xfree86-common. Dimitri> Besides, that wasn't my point. I was referring to all Dimitri> those useless libraries that get installed "because Dimitri> somebody might want to * run $foo in xterm * authenticate Dimitri> HTTP requests against mysql database * etc." What's about filing a bug against bitchx instead of passively complaining here... MH -- (Dr.) Michael Hummel mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- fprint = F24D EAC6 E3D7 372C 9122 D510 EB24 01CA 0B56 B518 id: 1024D/0B56B518 key: http://www.seitung.net/key pgpqjdQPJy5sK.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: > | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common, > > | who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!). > > It is a sugggestion, not a requirement. Must be a brain fart: I'm sure it was "Suggests: xfree86-common" when I looked at "packages that depend on xutils" in aptitude. Now that I checked, xutils actually *depends* on xfree86-common. Besides, that wasn't my point. I was referring to all those useless libraries that get installed "because somebody might want to * run $foo in xterm * authenticate HTTP requests against mysql database * etc." I'm sure it sounded like a reasonble idea at the time, but when $foo depends on $bar who depends on $baz and so on ad nauseam, the whole thing will get FUBAR eventually. All it takes is a little bug somewhere in the middle of dependency tree, and you'll see apt downloading 10GB of packages you didn't want while purging the ones you did want "to satisfy dependencies". Dima -- I'm going to exit now since you don't want me to replace the printcap. If you change your mind later, run-- magicfilter config script
Re: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 12:56:19PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk wrote: | Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common, | who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!). It is a sugggestion, not a requirement. This way people at home with their workstations will get the hint that an X server is required to use the X client. For others (like you with a distributed system) you can safely ignore the suggestion. Neither dpkg nor apt will complain about it. -D -- The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice. Proverbs 12:15
Suggestion for next Debian release
Ok, now bitchx depends on xutils, who in turn suggests xfree86-common, who in turn depends on libaxw and so on (THIS BOX HAS NO FSCKING X!!!). So I have a suggestion: why don't we make ALL libraries "required" and just install all of them as part of the base system? (Well, sans non-DFSG-compliant ones maybe.) Gr Dima -- Backwards compatibility is either a pun or an oxymoron. -- PGN
Re: Next Debian release
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:51:09PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When will Debian/GNU Linux 2.2 be releases? http://www.debian.org/News/2000/2726 moritz -- /* Moritz Schulte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * http://hp9001.fh-bielefeld.de/~moritz/ * PGP-Key available, encrypted Mail is welcome. */
Next Debian release
Hi. When will Debian/GNU Linux 2.2 be releases? Which what kernel version will it be released? Thanks. Regards, Yoav Russo, QA Department. Aladdin Knowledge Systems.
Re: Xfree86 3.3.3 for next Debian release or sooner?
> > Just wondering if XFree86 3.3.3 is being considered for the next release > > (2.2) or not... I would really like to have XF86 3.3.3 since it contains an > > X-server for the Riva TNT chipset. > Yes, as soon as Branden is done with the X in frozen(slink), he will start > working on 3.3.3 for unstable(potato). In the meantime, you can drop the binaries of the server into place in a 3.3.2 installation. I just dropped the SVGA_Server file onto my desktop, hoping it will stop the crashes on my screwball card (they only happen on some realvideo feeds, but the trial is coming up.) So far, it's working, but i'll need to wait for a heavily loaded server to see if it solves the problem. And it didn't solve the artifacts in 16bpp, but they might be better now . . .
Re: Xfree86 3.3.3 for next Debian release or sooner?
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, Chris R. Martin wrote: > Just wondering if XFree86 3.3.3 is being considered for the next release > (2.2) or not... I would really like to have XF86 3.3.3 since it contains an > X-server for the Riva TNT chipset. Yes, as soon as Branden is done with the X in frozen(slink), he will start working on 3.3.3 for unstable(potato). HTH, Brandon +--- ---+ | Brandon Mitchell * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://bhmit1.home.ml.org/ | | The above is a completely random sequence of bits, any relation to | | an actual message is purely accidental. |
Re: Xfree86 3.3.3 for next Debian release or sooner?
"Chris R. Martin" wrote: > > Just wondering if XFree86 3.3.3 is being considered for the next release > (2.2) or not... I would really like to have XF86 3.3.3 since it contains an > X-server for the Riva TNT chipset. > > Thanks, > Chris Just go to xfree86.org, download the 3.3.3 Xserver (by itself) that you need, and drop it in in place of your current Xserver (make a backup just in case). Works for me, and a good way to get the new functionality without having to wait for Debian 2.3. -- Ed C.
Xfree86 3.3.3 for next Debian release or sooner?
Just wondering if XFree86 3.3.3 is being considered for the next release (2.2) or not... I would really like to have XF86 3.3.3 since it contains an X-server for the Riva TNT chipset. Thanks, Chris
